La procédure de Baron et Kenny pour déterminer si une variable indépendante affecte une variable dépendante à travers une médiatrice est si connue qu'elle est utilisée par les auteurs et requise par les relecteurs quasi systématiquement. De nombreux projets de recherche ont été stoppés tôt dans un programme de recherche ou plus tard dans le processus de révision parce que les données n'étaient pas conformes aux critères de Baron et Kenny, empêchant ainsi l'avancement théorique. Bien que la littérature technique ait contesté certains tests de Baron et Kenny, elle n'a pas été diffusée auprès des chercheurs praticiens. Nous présentons un résumé non technique des failles de la logique de Baron et Kenny, parmi lesquelles certaines n'ont pas été évoquées auparavant. Nous proposons un arbre de décision et une procédure pas à pas pour examiner la médiation, classer ses types et interpréter les implications des conclusions dans le cadre de L'élaboration de la théorie et de recherches futures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaronR.M.KennyD.A. (1986), Moderator-mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 6, 1173–1182.
2.
BirnbaumM.H.MellersB.A. (1979), Stimulus recognition may mediate exposure effects, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 3, 391–394.
3.
BoltonL.E.CohenJ.B.BloomP.N. (2006), Does marketing products as remedies create ‘Get Out of Jail Free Cards'?, Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (Juin), 71–81.
4.
CliffN.EarleywineM. (1994), All predictors are ‘mediators’ unless the other predictor is a ‘suppressor,’ manuscrit non publié, University of Southern California.
5.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1975), Applied multiple regression: correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
CollinsL.M.GrahamJ.W.FlahertyB.P. (1998), An alternative framework for defining mediation, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 2, 295–312.
7.
DavisJ.A. (1985), The logic of causal order, in SullivanJ.L.NiemiR.G. (coord.), Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8.
FitzsimonsG.J. (2008), Death to dichotomizing, Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (Juin), 5–8.
9.
FriedmanL.WallM. (2005), Graphical views of suppression and multicollinearity in multiple linear regression, American Statistician, 59, 2, 127–136.
IacobucciD.SaldanhaN.DengX. (2007), A meditation on mediation: evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 2, 139–153.
12.
IrwinJ.R.McClellandG.H. (2001), Misleading heuristics and moderated multiple regression models, Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (Février), 100–109.
13.
JuddC.M.KennyD.A. (1981), Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations, Evaluation Review, 5, 5, 602–619.
14.
JuddC.M.KennyD.A. (2010), Data analysis in social psychology: recent and recurring issues, in GilbertD.FiskeS.T.LindzeyG. (coord.), The handbook of social psychology, 5e éd., New York: Wiley, 115–139.
KennyD.A.KashyD.A.BolgerN. (1998), Data analysis in social psychology, in GilbertD.FiskeS.T.LindzeyG. (coord.), Handbook of social psychology, 4e éd., Vol. 1, New York: McGraw-Hill, 233–265.
17.
MacKinnonD.P. (2000), Contrasts in multiple mediator models, in RoseJ.S.ChassinL.PressonC.ShermanS.J. (coord.), Multivariate applications in substance use research, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 141–160.
18.
MacKinnonD.P. (2008), Introduction to statistical mediation analysis, New York: Erlbaum and Taylor Francis Group.
19.
MacKinnonD.P. (2009), Current directions in mediation analysis, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 1, 16–20.
20.
MacKinnonD.P.KrullJ.L.LockwoodC.M. (2000), Equivalence of the mediation, confounding, and suppression effect, Prevention Science, 1, 4, 173–181.
21.
MacKinnonD.P.LockwoodC.M.HoffmanJ.M.WestS.G.SheetsV. (2002), A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects, Psychological Methods, 7, 1, 83–104.
22.
McFatterR.M (1979), The use of structural equation models in interpreting regression equations including suppressor and enhancer variables, Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 1, 123–135.
23.
MitraA.LynchJ.G.Jr. (1995), Toward a reconciliation of market power and information theories of advertising effects on price elasticity, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (mars), 644–659.
24.
MorganR.M.HuntS.D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58 (Juillet), 20–38.
25.
PalmatierR.W.DantR.P.GrewalD.EvansK.R. (2006), Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis, Journal of Marketing, 70 (Octobre), 136–153.
26.
PalmatierR.W.JarvisCheryl BurkeBechkoffJ.R.KardesF.R. (2009), The role of customer gratitude in relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, 73 (Septembre), 1–18.
27.
PreacherK.J.HayesA.F. (2004), SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 4, 717–731.
28.
PreacherK.J.HayesA.F. (2008), Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models, Behavior Research Methods, 40, 3, 879–891.
29.
ShroutP.E.BolgerN. (2002), Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendation, Psychological Methods, 7, 4, 422–445.
30.
SpencerS.J.ZannaM.P.FongG.T. (2005), Establishing a causal chain: why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 6, 845–851.
31.
ZhaoX. (1997), Clutter and serial order redefined and retested, Journal of Advertising Research, 37, 5, 57–74.
